Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 93

Thread: Dear developers. A collection of community suggestions

  1. #51
    James Morgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    29

    Response to Poor Lagged man Part III

    So? I am right? I don't understand what you want from the Devs. They are not gonna rework the whole public scene to suit your needs or the needs of the people who refuse to join units. They made a company tool for a reason to aid units in forming. This game is for organized groups. You do not have to join a unit but if you want the full WOR experience then I highly encourage you to do so. Fighting was done by large organized groups that drill and trained to together in the Civil War. You will never recreate that with only Pubs. The only time pub matches get organized is when Regimental members go on and make them organize. Even the groups that claim to not be regiments in which I refer to the Public clans are actually just non-historical regiments.

    You have spent so much time clamoring for reforms to public play when you are missing the point of the game. It is to recreate the feeling and spirit of the Civil war Through organized play. So if the public play will never be organized it is fairly obvious that the future of this game lies with the regimental players with the public games serving a midway point for new players to find regiments in action and for regimental players to play the game in a more relaxed fashion.

    In the time you have spent on these forums constantly on the Dev's to improve public play you could have started a successful regiment of which the union is in need of at this time. I personally have nothing against you besides the fact that when you constantly post on the forums it distracts the Devs from trying to make real progress with the game and honestly if you think everyone is against your opinion why bark up and bother everyone in the first place. It is like you enjoy causing arguments on the forums. I tend to not post on these forums and just read up on them. Due to the fact that I came into the game on steam release and needed to digest all of the history here. But, I can say with confidence that you seem like you care about the game but your effort is misguided. I will again suggest that you form a unit and get back into the organized scene of play and try to help the Devs make good progress instead of being the forum general you currently are.
    Last edited by James Morgan; 09-10-2019 at 04:54 PM.
    Longstreet's I Corps

    5th Texas Infantry CO

  2. #52
    LeFuret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    48
    I must agree with James Morgan here. It's like Poorlaggedman enjoys causing arguments: just look at his signature. 90% of the time, he just disagrees with everyone just for the sake of it.
    siiiiiip, yup.

  3. #53

  4. #54

    CSA Captain


    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by LeFuret View Post
    I must agree with James Morgan here. It's like Poorlaggedman enjoys causing arguments: just look at his signature. 90% of the time, he just disagrees with everyone just for the sake of it.
    His signature is the way it is because members of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas units don't often agree with him. PLM loves to say he's not anti-clan, but he's quick to try and generalize them simply for disagreeing.

    Anyways, back on topic: Most of these ideas are great, but I'm hoping most of their attention is on artillery and balance at this point.
    Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in!

  5. #55

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    646
    No one, and I mean no one, in this forum has all the answers for how this game should be developed. Regardless of what he has in his signature, how many videos he's made or how long his posts are. It all sounds great on paper then you put it in the game and all of a sudden "I told you so. Why are you guys so dumb? Literally killed the game. Etc." The devs put in Picket Patrol because there was a vocal portion of the community that asked for, and yes I was in it, I know several people the like the mode though the vast majority don't. As far as I'm concerned that is the most close to reality and logical portion of this game that exists because of the random element and forcing a leader to think outside of the box and get creative. Guess what, they did that during the war too.

    I swear the people on here bitching about team play are the ones that backseat quarterback the officers. Don't say you haven't either, I've seen the videos. Then they come on the forums and say the rank system sucks. Well how are you gonna decide who gets what role if all you want to do is hop into a game with random people you know nothing about. And in the same breath they'll berate organized units for whatever reason. The war wasn't fought with random people coming together to fight an enemy, I don't know why in the hell people expect this game to play any differently. It revolves around organized combat, and I think those who continue to argue against the grain just aren't capable of being led and want to take it out on everyone else.

    Its like trying to wrangle a bunch of 5 year olds. Hide behind the white knight facade all you want, that exterior gets more cracks in it every time you post.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    No one, and I mean no one, in this forum has all the answers for how this game should be developed. Regardless of what he has in his signature, how many videos he's made or how long his posts are. It all sounds great on paper then you put it in the game and all of a sudden "I told you so. Why are you guys so dumb? Literally killed the game. Etc." The devs put in Picket Patrol because there was a vocal portion of the community that asked for, and yes I was in it, I know several people the like the mode though the vast majority don't. As far as I'm concerned that is the most close to reality and logical portion of this game that exists because of the random element and forcing a leader to think outside of the box and get creative. Guess what, they did that during the war too.

    I swear the people on here bitching about team play are the ones that backseat quarterback the officers. Don't say you haven't either, I've seen the videos. Then they come on the forums and say the rank system sucks. Well how are you gonna decide who gets what role if all you want to do is hop into a game with random people you know nothing about. And in the same breath they'll berate organized units for whatever reason. The war wasn't fought with random people coming together to fight an enemy, I don't know why in the hell people expect this game to play any differently. It revolves around organized combat, and I think those who continue to argue against the grain just aren't capable of being led and want to take it out on everyone else.

    Its like trying to wrangle a bunch of 5 year olds. Hide behind the white knight facade all you want, that exterior gets more cracks in it every time you post.
    Here here! Extremely well said!

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    Your issue is that you are a public player who wants all the games to run like events and that defeats the purpose of forming companies, regiments, brigades etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox View Post
    You have to hand it to James, he's 100% right there.
    Business as usual for this type of game is a low population event-driven game. That's very bad. I'm tired of having to deal within the confines of that due to a lack of both ambition and imagination among the masses. Nobody in this community benefits in any way from a game which requires a unit to join or a passworded server to play in and yet this is the gold standard and it's a personal affront to the unit community to challenge this norm according to a handful of vocal players.

    Let's make public gameplay work better. wacko.gif
    "Stone him!!!"

    I don't want to hear any more retorts without substance just attacking motivations or throwing the whole discussion off-topic. It's all been said before. Vlads the only guy who ever pretended to formulate a real retort and I'm still waiting on his 100 reasons why leader election is a bad idea IIRC.


    There will be player count bumps with updates but you need non-committal, public-friendly gameplay. That has nothing to do with watering down a game's mechanics and turning it into something mainstream and it has everything to do with incentivizing each player to work towards a common goal of formulating the gameplay they came to play in the first place. That isn't happening. It's very difficult to have a good base of players when you don't provide what players want when they decide to purchase the game.

    Gameplay has nothing to do with how pretty a game is. It has to do with a player saying "I want to play Civil War combat" and they logon and they join a server and a certain high percentage of the time they get what they're looking for. The percentage is very poor right now.

    This is where some of you hold narrow visions and think you can lecture me about "this isn't that type of game" and it can never be public-friendly. Yet almost no 'pubber' buys this game to deal with messy gameplay, which is the average gameplay you can go on and record in a server (usually only half full lately). What a Youtube video would disclaimer as "actual gameplay." That's not a general condemnation of the game so far, but you need more than realistic weaponry, kill-multipliers deciding round outcomes, and 'balanced' maps. That's not what people are coming into the game for. That's not what the trailers show. That's not the Civil War combat people want to play. By failure to more aggressively mold that experience into the gameplay, the game is being set up for an event-driven future.

    Players want formation usage. Acceptable leadership. Flags that are waved proudly not hidden behind a tree. They don't want random guys running up behind them alone and stabbing at him and his buddies while he reloads. They don't want totally random guys leading them and no way whatsoever to choose someone else.

    Examples:
    The suppression I think works very well for out of line players in a gunfight. It does nothing for players who go in with a bayonet.

    The team morale system literally only determines who wins or loses the round and has little to do with the experience of the player outside of the end-of-round events. Why not make formations themselves more useful by expanding the system and tying it to faster respawns? That way we can potentially fight in formation and not all hugging a worm fence or hiding in a long single-file line behind one tree. If certain formations had benefits which countered their obvious negatives then this would help.

    The flag role should change so it's not a hidden respawn point as it is. Either add more grace periods to when the flag bearer is killed or change the whole system. Make a 'squad' system within the game. A player joins one... he forms up with one... when the formation is intact - he even respawns into one, no flag bearer needed. Rather than making the flag bearer an asset that needs to be protected make the active flag bearers help with zone control or speed up respawning, being most effective at the center of larger formations and less effective when other places within it. It's either that or flags will always be just a spawn point meant to be kept out of view. People don't come to War of Rights to see a flag always cowering in the rear as a strategy.

    Hey, tie the squads to leader chains. Leadership is a continuous crisis. We've had lots of good public leaders. It's not hard to tell the difference between a guy who sounds reasonable and a cinematic officer or an idiot who'll get us all killed. You learn their voices and their names and you play with the same players night after night at times. Officers have no authority right now and they can't delegate authority (it takes a miracle to have both a good officer and NCOs). Right now leaders have to both try to lead and also manage and maintain power over players who are under no obligation to follow him and had no say in his appointment. They have no real authority because they were never given authority by anybody because there's no system in place and I seriously have to put up with these people saying over and over again that the idea of fixing that is stupid and a waste of time.

    I'd be banned from this forum many times over if I hadn't been within these types of communities for ~20 years already.
    hat.gif


    Quote Originally Posted by LaBelle View Post
    His signature is the way it is because members of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas units don't often agree with him. PLM loves to say he's not anti-clan, but he's quick to try and generalize them simply for disagreeing.
    I didn't even know there was a 5th TX TBH (looking around I see some signatures now that I think on it) and I'm pretty sure the signature predates any knowledge of mine for the 4th. No. My signature actually came about exactly when the crapstorm of a thread demanding server passwords came out. I keep it because it was funny to most everybody who saw the reference and I don't have anything better to replace it with. Though yes, you Texas boys seem to be personally affronted by a loud independent voice on the forums. Usually I can't decipher exactly what the exact points of disagreement are though because they stay in character so well on the forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Morgan View Post
    In the time you have spent on these forums constantly on the Dev's to improve public play you could have started a successful regiment of which the union is in need of at this time.
    You're telling me that this game should continue to be designed for the convenience of regiments while at the same time the regiment scene itself has glaring vacancies that aren't being filled already?

    Nothing that helps public play is going to hurt regiments. It would in fact make forming a regiment easier if the gameplay had squad chain systems in place to network and appoint leaders based on your actual numbers.
    Last edited by Poorlaggedman; 09-12-2019 at 02:49 AM.
    Gameplay Suggestions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjUuaVXTJsY


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  8. #58

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,390
    It's still Alpha.

    2/3rds of the issues.

    <Edit: issues was problem >

  9. #59
    James Morgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    29

    Response to Poor Lagged man Part IV

    Hey man I will ignore that not subtle jab at my unit because it clearly obvious out of touch with the community. You have been a thorn in the side of progress in this game and this community at every turn. If you truly have 20 years of experience you should understand that screaming into the void every time you don't get your gets you no where into this community. WOR is doing pretty well at this time. The public scene is not perfect but is good for what it needs to be. It is a place for new players and people who don't want to join regiments. Players who choose to not join regiments are still apart of this community. However they obviously want a different experience than the regimental players in this game. I don't see all of the Public players behind you clamoring for these changes which is why I scratch my head when you claim to represent the public player. I play most days and have been on all of the servers in this game and I have never scene you in game. I have not even heard of a public player who knows who you are.

    Please understand that this game studio is very small. They try there best and they are making progress on the road map they set. That is what they promised players and all of the early backers to this game. Adding all of your ideas whether they are good or bad would delay this game a ridiculous amount and cost their studio a lot of money they don't have.
    Longstreet's I Corps

    5th Texas Infantry CO

  10. #60
    I would suggest to PLM to create his own unit and lead it according to your dreams and desires instead of looking at what others do wrong or should do or how to deal with public players.
    https://www.warofrightsforum.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=4755&dateline=1541487  819

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •